WSOP.com might be keeping confiscated cheater money, censors messages on their support forum about it

[zealanddonk]

Why would a regulated market give players less protection than a non-regulated market? That doesn't make much sense.

Steve, I'm not sure if you play online poker, have ever dealt with colluders, or understand the dire circumstances of not addressing colluders quickly, but taking 4 days to freeze the accounts of obvious colluders is absolutely unacceptable in any market. It wouldn't even be acceptable if the site was run by a bunch of tortoises.

In my case, of the 20+ colluders I've identified at Stars and other sites, these were the most obvious. Imagine how long it would have taken WSOP.com to freeze their accounts if they were less blatant.

By stating that the investigation/response time for a regulated market is and should be much slower than the non-regulated market, you're implying that the Gaming Control Board is directly involved in the investigation. It would be counter-productive if the regulators somehow impeded the progress of the investigation, or set policies that would slow the investigation down. I could be mistaken but I doubt the Gaming Control Boards are involved in or affect the investigation in any capacity.

When I would inform PokerStars of potential colluders, they would freeze their accounts within hours. Why? Because the evidence I had gathered in addition to their own quick preliminary investigation would give PokerStars enough suspicion to deem that collusion was very possible. They would then conduct a thorough investigation which included contacting the accused individuals with some questions. If they concluded they hadn't cheated, they're accounts would be unfrozen, and if they were deemed cheaters (they always were), they would be banned.

If I suspected colluders on PokerStars, it would usually take me minutes to confirm or disprove my suspicions. Minutes. How? I used SharkScope which would provide the game #s of the last 10 or so games for each player. It certainly wasn't the only factor, but if they often played together on a high traffic site like Stars, that would be cause for alarm. PokerStars would obviously have much more information to work with for their preliminary investigation, and their procedure allowed them to quickly address cases of suspected cheating.

As far as your litigation comment, in the unlikely scenario that a lawyer would take the case or a judge would hear the case, there is no way the plaintiff would ever win. I think you're just mistakenly equating the freezing of an account with banishment. In no way, should a site be held accountable if they suspected one of cheating, froze their account, discovered they weren't cheating and then unfroze their account.

I'm not asking that the site perform a quick and shoddy investigation. They should perform a quick preliminary investigation and promptly freeze the accounts if they suspect cheating. PokerStars would inform me the same day that there was enough suspicion to freeze the accused accounts. I wouldn't hear back from them for at least 2 weeks with their decision and there was nothing wrong with that.

I don't know the process WSOP.com/888 uses to address cheating allegations, but if it hasn't been changed for the better already, it needs to be changed. Perhaps they don't perform a preliminary investigation or maybe their Operations Department doesn't really know how to identify cheaters efficiently. There is a major flaw and we players should be protected as well as, if not better than, the top non-regulated site.

Because a regulated market has to protect the accused as well as the accuser. And yes, I'm well versed in poker (15 years and 5 as a professional) and collusion. What you're calling obvious might not be obvious; what if you were wrong and the accounts were closed for a week? You'd probably be pissed if that happened to you.

A perfect example of this is when Druff's account at some site (can't remember which one) was shutdown over false pretenses, this is far less likely to happen in a regulated market because of procedures and the fact that players now have a regulatory body to take complaints to if the site treats them unfairly.

I don't know how blatant it was, or even if it was 4 days in between, I'm just pointing out that regulated markets use due process --not every murderer is taken off the streets the moment a witness turns up at the police station

So it takes a week to preliminary investigate cases of collusion?
Does Bill Rini personally look at the hand histories during "work hours" only?

I used to like Steve-o's writing but this Baghdad Bob approach is starting to wear thin.

As to the rest, whats the point of having regulations if you haven't bothered reading them.

[psasjc]

What you're calling obvious might not be obvious; what if you were wrong and the accounts were closed for a week? You'd probably be pissed if that happened to you.

I might not always be right...especially if the cheaters aren't so obvious, and since I don't have access to my game or hand histories and can't use a site like Sharkscope. It's up to the site to collaborate my claims and all claims. If they decide that collusion or cheating is possible during the preliminary investigation, they should freeze the accounts.

There might be a scenario where the accused players were just buddies from out of town who liked to play against each other in every sit and go they played. To the accuser and the site, this might seem suspicious at first glance and the site may choose to freeze their accounts during their preliminary investigation. The site should send them each an email with questions, and they may just say they're competitive with each other and took that competitiveness online, and that they didn't share cards or soft play each other. The more thorough investigation, which includes looking at their hand histories, might determine that they were not colluding and their accounts would be unfrozen.

These players might be a little upset they had their accounts frozen, but there was a legitimate reason why it happened and they should understand that. If it happened to me, I might be upset or confused, but I would probably be understanding if the site had a valid reason to freeze my account in the first place, but they would need a solid reason.

When the freezing of one's account is necessary after a preliminary investigation of cheating, that person will most likely be found guilty. There will be exceptions, but in order to properly protect players from cheaters, a few innocent players will be inconvenienced with a frozen account from time to time. I think nearly every poker player would choose the risk of that rare inconvenience over having to play at a table with accused cheaters who haven't had their accounts frozen because the site wanted to perform a full investigation first and be 100% sure they were guilty.

[psasjc]

As to the rest, whats the point of having regulations if you haven't bothered reading them.

I've read the regulations on the Gaming Control site and WSOP.com's terms and conditions and, as expected, the Gaming Control Board isn't directly involved in any investigations nor are there any rules which impede the progress of an operator's investigation. WSOP.com may freeze/suspend or terminate a player's account at their own discretion. WSOP.com may notify the board of the suspected activity, but it is unclear what the board would do with that information.

There is no mention of compensating those who had been negatively affected by cheaters, so it's a judgement call by each site and the site's decision is not affected by the Gaming Control Board in any way. WSOP.com chooses not to partake and appears to keep the frozen funds in addition to the profits from the rake and entry fees.

I also did not notice any provisions (privacy or otherwise) which prevent WSOP.com from letting the accuser of a possible cheater know if the accused was found innocent or guilty. I believe WSOP.com withholds this information so they won't be obligated to reimburse players who had been cheated.

WSOP.com is choosing not to honorably and fairly protect player funds from cheaters. The Gaming Control Board needs to amend their regulations to better protect the players. My complaint will cover these areas.

So, there are no reasons preventing a regulated site from being able to protect their players as well as or better than a non-regulated site.

[Steve-O]

What you're calling obvious might not be obvious; what if you were wrong and the accounts were closed for a week? You'd probably be pissed if that happened to you.

I might not always be right...especially if the cheaters aren't so obvious, and since I don't have access to my game or hand histories and can't use a site like Sharkscope. It's up to the site to collaborate my claims and all claims. If they decide that collusion or cheating is possible during the preliminary investigation, they should freeze the accounts.

There might be a scenario where the accused players were just buddies from out of town who liked to play against each other in every sit and go they played. To the accuser and the site, this might seem suspicious at first glance and the site may choose to freeze their accounts during their preliminary investigation. The site should send them each an email with questions, and they may just say they're competitive with each other and took that competitiveness online, and that they didn't share cards or soft play each other. The more thorough investigation, which includes looking at their hand histories, might determine that they were not colluding and their accounts would be unfrozen.

These players might be a little upset they had their accounts frozen, but there was a legitimate reason why it happened and they should understand that. If it happened to me, I might be upset or confused, but I would probably be understanding if the site had a valid reason to freeze my account in the first place, but they would need a solid reason.

When the freezing of one's account is necessary after a preliminary investigation of cheating, that person will most likely be found guilty. There will be exceptions, but in order to properly protect players from cheaters, a few innocent players will be inconvenienced with a frozen account from time to time. I think nearly every poker player would choose the risk of that rare inconvenience over having to play at a table with accused cheaters who haven't had their accounts frozen because the site wanted to perform a full investigation first and be 100% sure they were guilty.

I pretty much agree with this 100%

not knowing the entire details of the investigation,precisely how long it took the accounts to be locked, or if there were stipulations on their play during the investigation (not allowed to play at same table/funds frozen) I personally don't find the time frame terrible... I guess it all depends on how the strong the evidence was

If they decide that collusion or cheating is possible during the preliminary investigation, they should freeze the accounts.

Out of curiosity and unrelated to this discussion, what would your threshold for possible be here 10%, 50%, 90%?

[psasjc]

I pretty much agree with this 100%

not knowing the entire details of the investigation,precisely how long it took the accounts to be locked, or if there were stipulations on their play during the investigation (not allowed to play at same table/funds frozen) I personally don't find the time frame terrible... I guess it all depends on how the strong the evidence was

I'm glad we're mostly on the same page, but the response time was terrible. Cheaters should be stopped as soon as possible to prevent honest players from suffering losses. If site A is capable of accomplishing this in a half of day, there is no reason why site B shouldn't be able to do the same. Anything longer than that amount of time is unacceptable.

If they decide that collusion or cheating is possible during the preliminary investigation, they should freeze the accounts.

Out of curiosity and unrelated to this discussion, what would your threshold for possible be here 10%, 50%, 90%?

A quick preliminary investigation should give adequate evidence that there's a high probability of cheating and if the freezing of an account is warranted. There should be very few circumstances where there's a gray area, and if so, they need to keep digging and take more time. In most cases after performing a preliminary investigation, the site should be 95% certain in one direction or the other. Hopefully, the accuser will provide adequate information (game #s and hand #s) to facilitate the process. It should also be quite easy to distinguish or recognize the legitimate accusations from the false or desperate ones.

[Jayjami]

Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Thousands of poker players and their laptops will be descending on Nevada at the end of next month. If Caesars doesn't deal with the collusion issue ASAP, it will be open season for cheating on their site. It looks like they really don't have any effective controls or policies in place to deal with the situation. Four kids up in their suite at the Rio all playing on the same table? That not going to be happen? Play at your own risk. Better yet, don't play at all.

[psasjc]

After discussing this with the poker community on 2+2 and giving the issue some more thought, I've come to realize that the greatest deterrent of cheating would be to hold the cheaters more accountable for their actions. Under a regulated market, there is no reason why the victims of cheaters shouldn't be fully reimbursed for their losses, and the cheaters should be responsible for repaying the site for all monetary damages that the site paid to the victims. The cheaters should also receive statewide bans from all sites and should be prosecuted by the state. Below is a list of recommendations I'll soon be resubmitting to the Gaming Control Board(s). Feel free to provide comments or any additions you feel should be included in these recommendations.


1) When the operator receives an email of suspected cheating, they shall complete a preliminary investigation within 24 hours of that email. They shall use the information provided by the accuser along with their preliminary investigation data gathering procedure to determine if the evidence points towards a strong likelihood of cheating. If so, the account(s) shall be frozen/suspended immediately and the next investigative phase shall begin.

2) All operators shall be required to provide the accuser of a cheater minimally the following information:
(a) If an account is frozen after a preliminary investigation, the accuser must be notified that cheating was determined to be possible and that the account(s) have been frozen in order to investigate the matter more thoroughly.
(b) After the conclusion of the investigation, the accuser shall receive an email which will inform the accuser if the individual(s) were found innocent or guilty of cheating and detail the accuser's possible reimbursement.

3) If a player is banned for cheating, the victims shall minimally receive the following reimbursements regardless of any pending or future legal matters:
a) For losses incurred during any tournament play (i.e. multi-table tournaments and SNGs) where the victims were at a disadvantage at any point while being seated with the cheater(s), the victims shall minimally receive a full reimbursement of the buy-ins and entry fees for all such tournaments they failed to cash in. The players in such tournaments shall be awarded any applicable pay bumps by removing the cheater(s) from the game results and redistributing the payouts. Reimbursements to the victims in regards to each such tournament shall be calculated individually and the total net profit or loss of each victim from play in all such tournaments collectively shall not be a factor when determining each player's reimbursement amount.
Example 1: Two banned colluders finished 1st and 2nd in a six person SNG which awarded two paid places. The players who finished 3rd and 4th would receive 1st and 2nd place money, respectively, and the players who finished 5th and 6th would have their buy-ins and entry fees refunded.
Example 2: Two banned colluders played in a tournament, but never sat at the same table. Because the other players were never at a disadvantage, no refunds or pay bumps would be awarded even if one of the colluders won the tournament.
Example 3: An MAer (multi-account cheater) controlled three accounts in a tournament in which two cashed, but none of those accounts ever played together at the same table. Since the cheater did not hold an advantage in any individual hand in the tournament, no players who had been seated with the cheater would be eligible for a refund. The accounts of the cheater would be removed from the results and pay bumps would be awarded.
b) For cash game play, the disadvantaged victims shall receive full reimbursement for all losses incurred in each hand won by the cheater(s).
c) If a cheater won a seat to a tournament through a satellite tournament, Sit and Go or a promotion, that seat shall be awarded to the runner-up player.
d) If a cheater negatively affected an operator's promotion (i.e. a leaderboard) where prizes are awarded, the cheater shall be removed from the promotion and the prizes shall be redistributed.

4) Account sharing:
a) The account holder and non-account holder(s) shall be banned, have their account(s) frozen, and be subject to prosecution at the discretion of the operator and/or regulator. They may also be held liable for the repayment of monetary damages and legal fees.
b) Any tournament cashes or promotional prizes won while an account was shared shall be forfeited and pay/prize bumps shall be awarded.
c) If an account holder allows a banned player to use their account, the account holder and banned player may be subject to stiffer regulator and state penalties.

5) Each reimbursed player or victim shall receive an email which states that one or some of their opponents violated the sites terms and conditions, that the opponents had their accounts permanently closed, that they will be receiving a refund of $X, and whether or not the site is able to reveal the handles and/or names of the offending players.

6) If a patron habitually accuses innocent players of cheating without providing justifiable evidence, the operator may issue the patron a warning of suspension if they continue to accuse innocent players without legitimate cause. If the behavior continues, the operator may temporarily suspend the account.

7) After an account is banned for cheating, the operator shall provide the account name(s) and identifying information of the cheater, and details of the investigation to the Gaming Control Board. The Gaming Control Board shall then:
a) Notify all other regulated operators in the state of the name(s) and identifying information of the cheater(s) and a summary of the findings. If an operator has an account(s) registered under those name(s), the operator shall notify the Gaming Control Board, immediately freeze those accounts and perform a full investigation which may lead to the compensation of victims who had suffered losses.
b) Consider the prosecution of the cheater(s).
c) Dole out regulatory punishments for the cheater(s) (i.e. lifetime ban from all sites).

8) When losses paid to the victims total more than the amount of the frozen fund(s) collected from the cheater(s), the operator may notify the Gaming Control Board that they would like to pursue a criminal and/or civil court case against the cheaters to recover the monetary damages and any applicable legal fees. Compensation to the victims shall not be delayed for or determined by the outcome of such court cases.

9) In addition to account suspension and banishment, the operator shall make their patrons aware in their terms and conditions that those who have been found guilty of cheating by the operator may be subject to prosecution which may result in jail, fines and the repayment of monetary damages and legal fees.

10) If the total funds retained in the frozen account(s) of a cheater or group of cheaters working together plus the rake and entry fees profited by the operator in games that were tainted by such cheaters is in excess of the amount reimbursed to the victims, the operator shall donate the surplus of funds to the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling.
or Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey.
or Delaware Council on Gambling, Inc.

11) The operator shall inform all current account holders of the consequences of cheating as detailed in section 8) through electronic mail. The operator shall create an additional step/page in the registration process where the consequences of cheating shall be listed. The new registrant must check a box to indicate that they have read and accept these consequences.

[Dan Druff]

Great job, and I hope you are successful.

I see there is now a pokerfuse article about your efforts: http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...e-poker-09-05/

[psasjc]

Great job, and I hope you are successful.

I see there is now a pokerfuse article about your efforts: http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...e-poker-09-05/

Thanks for the support and the link!

I received the below email from Bill on Monday which is a complete 180 from the excuse they gave me nearly 6 weeks ago as to why I wouldn't be reimbursed. Even though it was irrelevant, I had always doubted the claim that I had profited off of the colluders. Because I didn't accept their excuse and persisted that they provide me with the game history data which I never received and should have been granted per the gaming control board regulations (the regulator was notified), I believe they begrudgingly reversed their position.

Dear XXX,

We recently re-investigated the play of the players you reported and we have determined that their actions may have resulted in a loss to you of $X. We will be crediting your WSOP.com account in this amount.

Additionally, due to any inconvenience we may have caused you, we would also like to offer you $X as a goodwill gesture for your troubles and for bringing this matter to our attention. This will also be credited to your WSOP.com account.

Both credits should show up in your account within 72 hours.

Thank you for your patience in this matter and we hope to see you at the tables soon.

Sincerely,

Bill Rini
Head of Online Poker
WSOP.com

I guess it doesn't matter if they had a change of heart due to pressure from the regulator, or the realization that lying to a patron could get them in hot water with the regulator, or the unlikelihood that they truly made a mistake during the original investigation, or if they just wanted me to return to the site and put an end to my posts. What matters is whether or not they've changed their policies and will be fully protecting our funds from cheaters from now on. I replied back to Bill and am hoping he enlightens us.

This is a positive and long overdue first step for WSOP.com. Let's see if they keep going and win our trust back.

[Dan Druff]

Great ending to the story.

However, it is a little disturbing that they had to "re-investigate" to get you the money you lost to the cheaters. They should have gotten it right the first time, and especially shouldn't have continued arguing once you made it public.

[psasjc]

Great ending to the story.

However, it is a little disturbing that they had to "re-investigate" to get you the money you lost to the cheaters. They should have gotten it right the first time, and especially shouldn't have continued arguing once you made it public.

Well, it resolves one small aspect of the story, but I know what you meant.

I don't see how they could have made an error during the original investigation. When they're only looking at the results of 4 sit and goes, it's just not possible to make a mistake...especially during an investigation which was overseen by the boss. I wish I could have had access to my hand histories or had received the game history data as I had requested, but I know why they never sent it to me even though refusing to do so is a violation of the Gaming Control Board regulations.

I wonder if I'm the only one on WSOP.com or any other regulated site that has been refunded because of cheaters. Until the regulators get involved, would an aware victim of cheaters have to go through a similar ordeal in order to be fairly reimbursed by the site?

Despite being reimbursed and the little extra I had received for my "troubles," I would consider my efforts a failure if the recommended regulatory changes aren't enacted.

[Dan Druff]

To be honest, between what happened to you and the recent ridiculous "2 spot paying" Party Poker NJ tournament, I think that regulations for online poker are very immature right now, and need some serious addition/reform to protect players in all situations.

Like that Party NJ thing, if the support reps were erroneously telling people that it was a mistake and that other spots would pay, then they should 100% be liable to make good on it.

I thought your recommendations regarding collusion/cheating situations were good.

[psasjc]

To be honest, between what happened to you and the recent ridiculous "2 spot paying" Party Poker NJ tournament, I think that regulations for online poker are very immature right now, and need some serious addition/reform to protect players in all situations.

Like that Party NJ thing, if the support reps were erroneously telling people that it was a mistake and that other spots would pay, then they should 100% be liable to make good on it.

I thought your recommendations regarding collusion/cheating situations were good.

There's nothing shady about that Party Poker tournament. It's just your standard "Winner take two thirds, Runner-up take one third tournament." It just rolls off the tongue. Future WSOP event?

I'm kidding of course. If I finished 3rd through 18th in that tournament, I would certainly file a complaint with the regulator.

These sites think they could do and say whatever they want without any repercussions or regard to fairness, and it is to be seen if the regulators will let them operate with impunity. Any poker player could see through their bs and hopefully the regulators will, too.

"We meant to only pay two spots even though it wasn't advertised as such and we nor anybody else has ever run a winner take 2/3, runner-up take 1/3 tournament." Bs.

"We thought you would accept what we told you after the first investigation, but you had to tell the regulator and keep asking us for the data, so we "re-investigated" and, whataya know, you may have suffered losses so here you go and all is better now." Bs.

We'll know soon enough if the regulators are holding hands with the operators or if they'll actually protect us from their shadiness.

[alleyrivo]

Looks like transparency isnt "in " anymore among poker sites ( including pokerstars).